[pran]

 mycroft, on 2019-November-13, 13:17, said:

I was very confused at this whole...because all of Law 23 was basically "that thing we did with insufficient bids? It works pretty well. Let's do that with calls out of turn, too, and see if we can get more 'real auctions' out of it."

And then I double-checked what was being talked about - and it's not the 2007 laws, it's 1997?

We're actually arguing that Directors who have spent the last 13 years dealing with the rewritten Law 27 *still* rule as if it did not apply, because they "understand it better"?

Why is this not the problem? I had a club TD repeatedly ask about "did they win a trick with a card that they could have played to the revoke trick" - in 2013. And I thought that was ludicrous.

Yes, Law 23 (and Law 27 before that) can sometimes cause difficulties. I have issues with being put in a situation where I have to make a judgement ruling at the table, despite lots of training on "judgement rulings happen away from the table, after consultation." I have concerns about how to explain to the players what's going on without guiding them to the "correct" answer. I have concerns about them making the "wrong" choice and me barring partner on not "comparable call" when I can't/didn't tell them in advance I would do that. I'm not sure, personally, if it was the right decision to expand this (it definitely was not the right decision to scatter the *same* rectification in 3 places, just to concern the poor TD that it might be different between a bid and a double. Especially when it *is* different between a call out of turn and an insufficient bid).

But there should not, nowhere, be any club director, who in 2019 is still so used to ruling according to the 1997 laws because they haven't been trained in the 2007 laws that the change in 2017 isn't understandable. If there is, what service have we been giving the poor club players for the last 13 years? What happened to them when they went to Congresses and got a totally different ruling on IB from what they've always got in the clubs - or vice versa?

Side note: re: barmar, my bidding box *completely* faces LHO. With my (35-years ago) broken arm, it's the only way for me to comfortably pull cards. It is perfectly clear what I'm doing to the next caller in line - frequently to my detriment, when they pull out the pass card as soon as they can see that I'm bidding 3NT/4♥, even before it's cleared the box. I'm not the only one.

What we all should remember is that WBFLC in 2007, while maintaining the purpose of the laws unchanged, introduced a change in their philosophy on rectifications so that directors now were given more liberty to use their own common sense (within limits set by the laws) rather than just finding a law and reading out a fixed, specified rectification for an irregularity.

The reason for this change was the desire to have more results obtained by playing bridge (when possible) rather than by awarding more or less arbitrary adjusted scores.

This was expected possible from the recognition that tournament directors in general had become far better qualified now than had been the case in earlier years.
However, the change in philosophy made it more important than ever that directors familiarized themselves with the changes to the laws (which incidentally has always been expected with every change, but now particularly in 2007 and further in 2017).

INTRODUCTION TO THE 2017 LAWS OF DUPLICATE BRIDGE said:

.........
The purpose of the Laws remains unchanged. They are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy for when something goes wrong. They are designed not to punish irregularities but rather to rectify situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged.
.........
The trend, begun in 2007, to give Tournament Directors more discretion in enforcing the Law has been continued and attempts have been made to clarify interpretations.
.........

[Vampyr]

 VixTD, on 2019-November-11, 07:49, said:

This is fine for those directors such as you and me who want to go on training courses and study commentaries, but what about the majority of club and regional directors who don't? I train club directors in the UK, and they find understanding and applying law 23 the hardest part of the job. I have said (only half-jokingly) that the 2017 version of law 23 should be regarded as the equivalent of a heavy-goods vehicle - only TDs with a special licence should be allowed to drive it. Less qualified TDs should just apply the 1997 laws on insufficient bids; they'd do much less damage that way.

I think that you might also instruct them to allow things like “Stayman missing a level” sort of thing.

[VixTD]

 Vampyr, on 2019-November-13, 23:14, said:

I think that you might also instruct them to allow things like “Stayman missing a level” sort of thing.

I instruct them to allow everything the (current) laws allow, including this.

The problem is not what I'm teaching them or the way I'm teaching it (contrary to Ed's less-than-charitable opinion), but the students' inability to understand or apply the laws, in particular to manage the three categories of comparable call, on top of the "lowest legal call that specifies the same denomination" of law 27, and then under which circumstances lead penalties and an adjusted score should be considered afterwards. The best some of them can manage is "do you want to accept the bid?" (yes or no, answer now), followed by "you have to make a comparable call" when it's not accepted.

[Vampyr]

 VixTD, on 2019-November-14, 13:22, said:

I instruct them to allow everything the (current) laws allow, including this.

The problem is not what I'm teaching them or the way I'm teaching it (contrary to Ed's less-than-charitable opinion), but the students' inability to understand or apply the laws, in particular to manage the three categories of comparable call, on top of the "lowest legal call that specifies the same denomination" of law 27, and then under which circumstances lead penalties and an adjusted score should be considered afterwards. The best some of them can manage is "do you want to accept the bid?" (yes or no, answer now), followed by "you have to make a comparable call" when it's not accepted.

OK, but it is probably best to instruct them to be very conservative when judging a call to be comparable. And to be aware that volunteer playing directors will not have the time to learn all of the nuances of the OP’s system in order to make that judgment.

[VixTD]

 mycroft, on 2019-November-13, 13:17, said:

But there should not, nowhere, be any club director, who in 2019 is still so used to ruling according to the 1997 laws because they haven't been trained in the 2007 laws that the change in 2017 isn't understandable. If there is, what service have we been giving the poor club players for the last 13 years? What happened to them when they went to Congresses and got a totally different ruling on IB from what they've always got in the clubs - or vice versa?

Lots of (particularly elderly) club TDs can manage something akin to the 1997 insufficient bid ruling of allowing the call to be accepted and if it isn't, allowing a no-penalty change to the lowest legal call in the same denomination if both the insufficient bid and its replacement were "incontrovertibly not conventional" (the attendant problems of ascribing a "meaning" to an insufficient bid notwithstanding). The 2007 laws introduced the concept of the intended meaning of the insufficient bid, which has now been removed, so it's better to skip that version of the law book entirely. There's nothing wrong with the service I've been giving them, I follow the (much lauded) EBU club directors training course and role-play ruling simulations. They won't be confused when a better trained TD gives a proper ruling at a congress, because they know that the ruling they are giving at the club isn't actually correct, they just know it is the best they can manage in the few minutes available to them to get play going again at the table where a problem has occurred and allow the game to finish. Is that really so terrible in a club game? What do you suggest? Forcible retraining of less-than-perfect TDs, or sacking of the only person in the club who's willing to give up their time to helping to organise the game, is like insisting on applying the letter of the laws of association football in a children's kickabout in the park.

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2019-November-11, 11:50, said:

Actually, being a mathematician might be more of a hindrance.

The people who wrote the law are probably not mathematicians, and I doubt they intended it to be interpreted mathematically. But the meanings of bids are not precisely defined like mathematical sets, they're fuzzy definitions of general concepts.

Some people have tried to interpret this by thinking of the set of all hands that would make a bid. But I think the intent is more like "Bid X shows hand-type A, hand-type B, or hand-typeC", and a subset might be a bid that shows "hand-type A".

Yes, certainly a bid that shows hand-type A should be allowed.

Thinking in terms of “subsets” is counterproductive. Example: (2♥)-2♥. You are trying to make a Michaels cuebid. You can instead bid 4♣, leaping Michaels. This is a “subset” of the original intention. But sometimes it is not so clear. I don’t have time now to construct some examples, but I will do soon.

[mycroft]

 VixTD, on 2019-November-14, 13:45, said:

Lots of (particularly elderly) club TDs can manage something akin to the 1997 insufficient bid ruling of allowing the call to be accepted and if it isn't, allowing a no-penalty change to the lowest legal call in the same denomination if both the insufficient bid and its replacement were "incontrovertibly not conventional" (the attendant problems of ascribing a "meaning" to an insufficient bid notwithstanding). The 2007 laws introduced the concept of the intended meaning of the insufficient bid, which has now been removed, so it's better to skip that version of the law book entirely. There's nothing wrong with the service I've been giving them, I follow the (much lauded) EBU club directors training course and role-play ruling simulations. They won't be confused when a better trained TD gives a proper ruling at a congress, because they know that the ruling they are giving at the club isn't actually correct, they just know it is the best they can manage in the few minutes available to them to get play going again at the table where a problem has occurred and allow the game to finish. Is that really so terrible in a club game? What do you suggest? Forcible retraining of less-than-perfect TDs, or sacking of the only person in the club who's willing to give up their time to helping to organise the game, is like insisting on applying the letter of the laws of association football in a children's kickabout in the park.

Apologies for the delay, and you do have a point. I don't like it, because I think 90% of the 2007 change is "obvious" - "you can change 2NT-p-2♥ to 3♥ because it's the same thing" or the like - and much of the other 10% can be seen with "okay, you were trying to show hearts and a responding hand, but didn't see the 1♠ bid. If they don't want to bid 2♥, and have a call that shows '4+hearts and a responding hand' [hint hint - double], they can now do that legally [even though it's an "insufficient bid and then double - still can't do that with a *penalty* double]." I would have thought that was trainable to "many (particularly elderly) club TDs", and the 2% that is actually complicated; sure that can go hang. Maybe I'm biased, as directors in my area (with notable exceptions) work hard to become better directors - mostly because they aren't "payment is a free game" directors, they're "people will go to others' games" directors.

Frankly, the biggest issue I have with the new Laws is the "UI from COOT for partner" part. I find that impossible to explain to players, and very difficult to judge for me. I can't imagine how bad it is for the club TDs we are concerned about Comparable Call determination [okay, yes, I know the answer to this - so bad it's not even noticed; opener will happily pass their ♣KQTxxxx and a card after partner shows an opening bid out of turn, and none of the 5 will realize there's a problem.]

I'm not concerned at all when the TD gets a different ruling at congress for the exact reasons you state. I am very concerned about the non-TD players that get a totally different ruling, and either stop going to congresses because "they rule different than the clubs, and it's always against me", or stop playing at the clubs because they prefer playing under the actual Laws; note that I was not the only one who stopped going to that one TD's game after several attempts to invoke the 1997 revoke Law in 2013. But again, I'm biased, as my area has a game every day, frequently one afternoon and one evening, and frequently a restricted game and an open game on the same afternoon - so I can just "go somewhere else." But even the "two, 5-table, games a week" have competition from BBO.

I think you're doing the best for your situation - I just don't like it much, and I don't think it's the fault of the Lawmakers. Frankly, at some clubs, if "1997 IB laws and 2007 COOT laws" are the worst abuses of the Law (along with "A+/A- on any judgment ruling"), so be it. Maybe we do need Magic's RELs for the Judges Directors as well as for the players.

[rmb]

Just so that pran can call me stupid:
how does a call 'define' anything (a meaning or subset of meanings)?
what is a 'subset of (possible) meanings'?

[sfi]

 rmb, on 2019-November-21, 16:53, said:

Just so that pran can call me stupid:
how does a call 'define' anything (a meaning or subset of meanings)?
what is a 'subset of (possible) meanings'?

Apologies if I'm not understanding your question correctly, but a call typically shows something so it has meaning - it defines a set of hands that fall within the range of the call.

Let's look at the original auction: 1C - (1H) - 1H.

As director, I would ask the player what they were trying to do with the 1H bid. In this case, they would say "show hearts." I can easily confirm that the bid shows something like 6+ points and 4+ hearts.

Now, when I bring up the question of a comparable call, I will ask something like "can you make any call that would show 4+ hearts and 6+ points, or something more specific than that?" If so, that would be a subset of the original meaning of 1H, and we determine that would be comparable.

Let's rewind to my original question and pretend they said "transfer to spades, may be zero points". Now when I ask whether they have a bid that shows 4+ spades, they might say double (4+ spades), 2S (spades + clubs) or 4S. All of those would be comparable because they show either the same thing as the original intent or something more specific.

Finally, consider that they reply "good club raise" and we find out a cue would be something like 10+ points and 4+ clubs. What options do they have that will not bar partner? First, they get to show clubs with the first bid (not call, so double or redouble are not applicable here), so they are probably allowed to bid 2C with no penalty (although I would look at the result to see if partner used the information that they have a stronger hand than that shown by 2C). Additionally, we look at comparable calls. Probably 2H is comparable using Law 23A1 (same meaning) or Law 23A3 (same purpose), and there may be others.

Once they understand their options, we can go back to the table and they get to choose a call. I now assess whether it is comparable, using the information we talked about, and complete the ruling.